change log for rtems (2011-10-07)

[Ralf Corsepius]

On 10/07/2011 03:51 PM, Peter Dufault wrote:
>
> On Oct 7, 2011, at 5:11 , rtems-vc at rtems.org <mailto:rtems-vc at rtems.org>
> wrote:
>
>>               uint32_t R;
>>               struct {
>>                   uint32_t:5;
>> -                uint32_t SIZE:3;
>> -                uint32_t:1;
>> +                uint32_t SIZE:4;
>>                   uint32_t LAS:3;
>>                   uint32_t:3;
>>                   uint32_t MAS:1;
>>
>
> I think that's definitely wrong.

It wasn't me who wrote the original code.

> The MPC55xx structure starts out:
>
> struct FLASH_tag {
> union { /* Module Configuration Register */
> uint32_t R;
> struct {
> uint32_t:4;
> uint32_t SIZE:4;
> uint32_t:1;
> uint32_t LAS:3;
> uint32_t:3;
> uint32_t MAS:1;
>
> so if it is compatible in any way then the reserved field of :5 needs be
> cut down to :4 instead of shifting the size bit to the right.

OK, if you say, so - The evilness of bitfield's sensitivity to 
endianness shows ;)


Just to avoid further misunderstandings, could you send a patch for what 
you think is correct?

> As I said when I reopened the bug, I think it's best to disable this
> file for the 567x and let someone with the chip reenable it when they
> can test it, and when they fix it they should conditionalize the switch
> statement to keep that warning intact for other systems.
AFAICT, this would be Sebastian :-)

Ralf